ermmm the ai would have been created by humans... right?
so the way it thinks has been created by humans too... right?
so its program can also be changed by their creators... right?

so voting robots would be a way to influence votings to increase your standpoint... i dont see this working honestly.. people creating machines to vote for them, whats the point of voting anymore at this point? oh its the same as in the past, the one with more money(more robots) wins the vote... okay then carry on and give those ai's the right of voting ... Oo

ermmm the ai would have been created by humans... right?
so the way it thinks has been created by humans too... right?
so its program can also be changed by their creators... right?

so voting robots would be a way to influence votings to increase your standpoint... i dont see this working honestly.. people creating machines to vote for them, whats the point of voting anymore at this point? oh its the same as in the past, the one with more money(more robots) wins the vote... okay then carry on and give those ai's the right of voting ... Oo

The idea that is being discussed here is an AI which think for itself.

ermmm the ai would have been created by humans... right?
so the way it thinks has been created by humans too... right?
so its program can also be changed by their creators... right?

so voting robots would be a way to influence votings to increase your standpoint... i dont see this working honestly.. people creating machines to vote for them, whats the point of voting anymore at this point? oh its the same as in the past, the one with more money(more robots) wins the vote... okay then carry on and give those ai's the right of voting ... Oo

How is that different than having children and raising them to be biased towards certain ideals, ensuring they always vote a certain way? People can be controlled and manipulated, too.

How is that different than having children and raising them to be biased towards certain ideals, ensuring they always vote a certain way? People can be controlled and manipulated, too.

At least that takes 18 years, as opposed to flooding the voting booths in one month during a current election. In 18 years chances are whatever legislation you were hoping to swing has already been established and grounded and accepted. For most small issues anyway.

At least that takes 18 years, as opposed to flooding the voting booths in one month during a current election. In 18 years chances are whatever legislation you were hoping to swing has already been established and grounded and accepted. For most small issues anyway.

Excuse me for a moment, I would just like to offer up a hypothetical. [I realize these aren't exactly the most valid form of proving a point, but just humor me.]

Suppose we could clone people. And not only clone a person, but make an exact replica. Same values, morals - they are virtually indistinguishable from the original. And let's say that we can not only clone a person, but mass-produce them, much like robots. At this point, would they deserve the right to vote? They certainly aren't natural, but they are human. At least, more human that the army of robot voters.

This also exemplifies my problem with the whole "they aren't natural, therefore they don't get rights" reasoning. You know what else isn't "natural?" Humans born through in vitro fertilization aren't as natural as those born through conventional means.

We also do plenty of things that aren't natural. It isn't natural to communicate using devices that are comprised of synthetic plastics and metals with people on the other side of the planet. It isn't natural to take just about any drug out there in order to cure a genetic ailment. It isn't natural to use tools like glasses to overcome our genetic shortcomings. Hell, it isn't natural to transplant organs, especially not from one living subject to another. So why does it matter that something is natural or not, when we are probably the least natural entities on this planet?

About AI and human. I never understood the notion that AI would want to be human. It's maybe flattering for humans, but there is no reason why a form of intelligence would want to be human.

About human rigths. It wont have human rights as we know them, as they do not originate as humans. They will have rights that are first described by humans. Later these rights will be refined by machines with AI themselves.

If you say no then why do you say no? Are all humans deserving of such rights on the premise they are human? What makes a human "a human"? I would hope that if an AI were created it would be treated with the dignity deserved by all active minds.

Simple solution don't build them to be sentient that is just a bad idea robots are for jobs we don't want basically slave labor if they were sentient . why would you build a slave able to say no. Capable but stupid is the way to go for machines.